1
                                                             
                           
                        DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
---------------------- )       ISCR Case No. 12-00163
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Fahryn Hoffman, Esquire, Department Counsel
                                                                            
______________
Decision
______________
MARSHALL, Jr., Arthur E., Administrative Judge:
On August 13, 2012, the Department of Defense (DOD) issued to Applicant a
Statement of Reasons (SOR) enumerating security concerns under Guideline H (Drug
Involvement). The action was taken under Executive Order 10865, Safeguarding
Classified Information within Industry (February 20, 1960), as amended; DOD Directive
5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review Program (January 2,
1992), as amended (Directive); and the adjudicative guidelines (AG) effective within the
DOD on September 1, 2006. 
In an undated response, Applicant admitted all four allegations and requested a
hearing before a DOHA administrative judge. The case was assigned to me on October
12, 2012. The parties agreed to a hearing date of November 8, 2012. A notice to that
effect was issued on October 19, 2012. I convened the hearing as scheduled. 
Applicant gave testimony and offered two documents, which were accepted
without objection as exhibits (Exs.) A-B. The Government presented two documents,
which were accepted without objection as Exs. 1-2. Applicant was given until November
19, 2012, to present any additional materials. On November 19, 2012, Applicant
forwarded to the Government three additional documents. The transcript (Tr.) of the
proceeding was received on November 27, 2012. On December 4, 2012, the
Government forwarded Applicant’s three post-hearing submissions to me without
objection. They were accepted into the record as Exs. C-E and the record was closed.
Based on a thorough review of the testimony, submissions, and exhibits, I find
 Tr. 18.      1
 Tr. 19-20.      2
2
Applicant met his burden of mitigating security concerns related to drug involvement.
Clearance is granted.
Findings of Fact
Applicant is a 25-year-old who has worked for the same defense contractor for
the past three-and-a-half years. He was recently promoted to the position of Financial
Analyst II. He has served his present employer since graduating from college with
bachelor’s degrees in both entrepreneurship and finance. He is single. From the
beginning, Applicant has been candid about his high school and collegiate drug use.
In 2003, while in 10  grade, Applicant tried marijuana and alcohol. He againth
used marijuana and alcohol in the autumn of 2003, during his junior year. As an
upperclassmen, Applicant’s use of alcohol increased to about twice a month, and he
began using marijuana more frequently during the autumn semester. He ceased using
marijuana for about a year because a girlfriend objected to his using the substance.
After they broke up, he returned to using marijuana on occasion until high school
graduation. His use at the time was erratic. He noted, “it could be some weekends
consecutively or maybe once a month [during] other time periods.”  His use of1
marijuana, as well as the other proscribed drugs noted in the SOR, was always social.
He occasionally bought the drug. He would continue using marijuana until May 2011.
Immediately after graduating from high school in May 2005, Applicant enrolled in
a local college’s summer program. That summer, he tried hallucinogenic mushrooms at
the suggestion of a peer. Although he found the substance uninteresting, he tried it
three more times before quitting its use in April 2009, around the time he graduated
from college. 
In the interim, in 2006, Applicant tested positive for THC on an initial screening
test administered by a friend’s father’s construction business, where Applicant had
sought summer employment. No adverse repercussions ensued because Applicant
abandoned his plans for summer employment and moved to another area shortly
thereafter.   In January 2007, Applicant tried cocaine, a substance he used about five2
times in total before ceasing its use in September 2010.
Applicant never had any particular interest in hallucinogenic mushrooms or
cocaine. With both drugs, he tried them out of curiosity and because his college friends
were using them. His lack of interest led to his cessation of those drugs. 
Applicant quit using marijuana in May 2011, however, under different
circumstances. At the time, he had been out of college for two years. During the
previous two years, he had left his collegiate routines and started living on his own. His
  Tr. 22. To the best of Applicant’s knowledge, his former peers no longer use drugs      3
 Tr. 21, 40-41.      4
 Tr. 46-47. Applicant attributes his 2009-2011 marijuana use to the habit he developed in college.  Changes      5
in his lifestyle and the opportunity to get a security clearance helped motivate him out of his former routine.
 Tr. 49.      6
 Tr. 54-55.       7
 Tr. 23.      8
3
contact with his collegiate peers became “very minimal.”  He developed a new routine3
centered on his job, his music, and developing a post-collegiate social life in new
environs. Over time, his work responsibilities grew and he began spending more time
with his music. He grew to love his work, which is in his chosen field. Working with his
employer gave him the opportunity to apply his studies, expand his knowledge base,
and travel. He is dedicated to both his job and his employer. 
When his employer asked him to apply for a security clearance, Applicant
carefully considered its significance and the requirements. After reviewing the materials,
Applicant understood that his continued use of marijuana could adversely affect his
career. He weighed the importance of his waning use of marijuana against the
potentially adverse effects on his future and his career presented by his continued use
of the drug. “I was going through the e-QIP form and drug use came up. I knew I
wanted to tell the truth and I [sic] at that point decided it wasn’t worth smoking
marijuana and decided I was going to quit and not smoke it anymore.”  Realizing he4
had outgrown marijuana use, he ceased using it. 
Applicant experienced no withdrawal symptoms after quitting marijuana in May
2009. He does not regret putting his career and his future ahead of immature
pleasures. He has not been tempted to use drugs again. He found quitting marijuana to
be easy, a fact he attributes to the dramatic changes in his life and lifestyle over the
past two years, having grown from immature collegian and recent graduate to
burgeoning young professional capable of making responsible choices.  He was quick5
to recognize that he had outgrown the marijuana habit.  He is contrite about his past6
drug use. To the best of his knowledge, he does not knowingly associate with those
who use drugs. It is his intent to remain drug-free. He submitted a notarized statement
of intent not to use drugs in the future. He conveyed his intent during the hearing to
have the notarized statement fulfill the function of a statement of intent as contemplated
under ¶ AG 26(b)(4) (a signed statement of intent with automatic revocation of
clearance for any violation).   7
To demonstrate that he does not “have time to do drugs anymore” even if he
wanted to do so, Applicant cites to recent changes in his life.  He has been undertaking8
more difficult assignments over the past two years, culminating in his recent promotion
to the level of Financial Analyst II, a position that often requires late nights and
weekend work hours. In his free time, Applicant is a musician and songwriter who, with
 See also ISCR Case No. 94-1075 at 3-4 (App. Bd. Aug. 10, 1995).      9
 ISCR Case No. 93-1390 at 7-8 (App. Bd. Jan. 27, 1995).      10
4
his band, recently released their first CD through a major internet music source. He now
focuses his energy on his health and his lifestyle, regularly working out and watching his
diet. He currently lives with his parents, who know of Applicant’s past drug use. Now in
his mid-20s, he is looking into local residential housing in anticipation of a future home
purchase. 
Policies
When evaluating an applicant’s suitability for a security clearance, an
administrative judge must consider the AG. In addition to brief introductory explanations
for each guideline, the AG list potentially disqualifying conditions and mitigating
conditions. These guidelines are not inflexible rules of law. Instead, recognizing the
complexities of human behavior, these guidelines are applied in conjunction with the
factors listed in the adjudicative process. The administrative judge’s overarching
adjudicative goal is a fair, impartial, and commonsense decision. Under AG ¶ 2(c), this
process is a conscientious scrutiny of a number of variables known as the “whole-
person concept.” The administrative judge must consider all reliable information about
the person, past and present, favorable and unfavorable, in making a decision.
The protection of the national security is the paramount consideration. AG ¶ 2(b)
requires that “[a]ny doubt concerning personnel being considered for access to
classified information will be resolved in favor of national security.” In reaching this
decision, I have drawn only those conclusions that are reasonable, logical, and based
on the evidence contained in the record.
The Government must present evidence to establish controverted facts alleged
in the SOR. An applicant is responsible for presenting “witnesses and other evidence to
rebut, explain, extenuate, or mitigate facts admitted by applicant or proven by
Department Counsel. . . .”  The burden of proof is something less than a9
preponderance of evidence. The ultimate burden of persuasion is on the applicant.  10
A person who seeks access to classified information enters into a fiduciary
relationship with the Government predicated upon trust and confidence. This
relationship transcends normal duty hours and endures throughout off-duty hours. The
Government reposes a high degree of trust and confidence in individuals to whom it
grants access to classified information. Decisions include, by necessity, consideration
of the possible risk the Applicant may deliberately or inadvertently fail to safeguard
classified information. Such decisions entail a certain degree of legally permissible
extrapolation about potential, rather than actual, risk of compromise of classified
information.
Section 7 of Executive Order 10865 provides that decisions shall be “in terms of
the national interest and shall in no sense be a determination as to the loyalty of the
 Id.      11
 Id.      12
 AG  ¶ 24.      13
 Id. at ¶ 24(a)(1-2).      14
 Id. at  ¶ 24(b).      15
5
applicant concerned.” See also EO 12968, Section 3.1(b) (listing multiple prerequisites
for access to classified or sensitive information). “The clearly consistent standard
indicates that security clearance determinations should err, if they must, on the side of
denials.”  Any reasonable doubt about whether an applicant should be allowed access11
to sensitive information must be resolved in favor of protecting such sensitive
information.12
Analysis
Guideline H - Drug Involvement
Use of an illegal drug or misuse of a prescription drug can raise questions about
an individual’s reliability and trustworthiness, both because it may impair judgment and
because it raises questions about a person’s ability or willingness to comply with laws,
rules, and regulations.  “Drugs” are defined as mood and behavior altering substances13
and include drugs, materials, and other chemical compounds identified and listed in the
Controlled Substances Act of 1970, as amended, (e.g., marijuana or cannabis,
depressants, narcotics, stimulants, and hallucinogens) and inhalants and other
substances.  “Drug abuse” is the illegal use of a drug or use of a legal drug in a14
manner that deviates from approved medical direction.15
Applicant admits using marijuana, cocaine, and hallucinogenic mushrooms. He
also admits he tested positive for marijuana in 2006 during a pre-employment
screening. In addition, he admits that he purchased drugs on occasion.  Such facts are
sufficient to raise Drug Involvement Disqualifying Conditions AG ¶ 25(a) (any drug
abuse) and 25(c) (illegal drug possession, including cultivation, processing,
manufacture, purchase, sale, or distribution; or possession of drug paraphernalia).
Consequently, the burden shifts to Applicant to mitigate related security concerns.
Applicant first became involved with drugs in his teens. He used them at various
times and in varying amounts from about 2003 or 2004, when Applicant was in 10th
grade, until May 2011, about two years after he completed his undergraduate degree.
Today, Applicant is 25 years old. He has been drug-free for 21 months, demonstrating
nearly two years abstinence. 
I conclude that Applicant successfully completed an appropriate period of
abstinence and demonstrated his ability to refrain from future drug use. Although 21
months is a brief period of time when compared to nearly eight years of drug use, that
drug use was intermittent and there is no indication that Applicant was dependent or
6
addicted to any illegal drugs. Moreover, 21 months is a significant amount of time in the
life of a 25-year-old. Unlike briefer periods of abstinence in the past, such as his
foregoing marijuana during a teenage romance, Applicant’s cessation now is based on
an adult decision, free from adolescent peer pressure or youthful curiosity. His decision
was based on weighing accumulated habits against current personal priorities,
realistically assessing his future goals in terms of his education and motivation, and his
ability to make mature choices that would help achieve those goals. 
Furthermore, given Applicant’s sincere expressions of genuine satisfaction with
regard to his present situation, it is hard to believe he would ever jeopardize either his
current job or career path. In addition, he has moved and does not knowingly associate
with those who use drugs. As well, he has submitted a statement of intent not to use
drugs in the future, which, in light of his testimony at the hearing, was executed with the
intent to comply with the terms of AG ¶ 26(b)(4). Given these considerations, I find that
Drug Involvement Mitigating Conditions AG ¶ 26(b)(1) (disassociation from drug-using
associates and contacts), AG ¶ 26(b)(2) (changing or avoiding the environment where
drugs were used), AG ¶ 26(b)(3) (an appropriate period of abstinence), and AG ¶
26(b)(4) (a signed statement of intent with automatic revocation of clearance for any
violation) apply.
Whole-Person Concept
Under the whole-person concept, an administrative judge must evaluate an
applicant’s eligibility for a security clearance by considering the totality of an applicant’s
conduct and all the circumstances. An administrative judge should consider the nine
adjudicative process factors listed at AG ¶ 2(a). Under AG ¶ 2(c), the ultimate
determination of whether to grant a security clearance must be an overall
commonsense judgment based on careful consideration of the guidelines and the
whole-person concept. 
I considered the potentially disqualifying and mitigating conditions in light of all
the facts and circumstances surrounding this case, as well as the whole-person factors.
Multiple facts speak in Applicant’s favor. He is highly credible and well-educated. He is
earnestly seeking to move forward with his life and career. He has been candid about
his past drug use from the beginning. Applicant acknowledges the illegality of his past
conduct and has not tried to minimize his past experiences with drugs. Indeed, he has
demonstrated genuine contrition over his past abuse of illegal drugs.
Applicant’s passing experiences with mushrooms and cocaine ended in 2009
and 2010, respectively. His abuse of those controlled substances was relatively
minimal, as compared to his use of marijuana. Applicant’s use of marijuana continued
until April 2011 as a vestige of his collegiate experience. Despite the onset of maturity
that came with college graduation, Applicant continued using the drug occasionally for
about two years after college. With maturity came the personal and professional
realization that he had to make certain choices about his life in order to follow his newly
chosen career path. In April 2011, he made the choice to forego immature habits and
earnestly pursue his personal and professional goals. That choice included giving up
marijuana permanently.  
7
Since quitting marijuana, Applicant has avoided those who use that substance.
Instead of experiencing the languid influences of marijuana, he leads a highly active
and busy life. As his professional responsibilities have increased, he has personally
flourished at work. His musical hobby has yielded unexpected successes. He enjoys a
new level of health and energy through his new fitness regimen. He has changed his
circle of friends. Applicant had no difficulty quitting illegal drugs, and there is no
indication that he would jeopardize his current lifestyle or job by using marijuana or any
other controlled substance again. Indeed, his commitment to his work and his employer
is of such a degree that its continuance appears to guarantee that Applicant will
maturely comport his behavior in all aspects of his life. Given the foregoing, and in light
of Applicant’s highly credible testimony and demeanor, I have no concerns that
Applicant will again resort to the abuse of marijuana or any other illegal drugs.
Consequently, I find that drug involvement security concerns are mitigated. Clearance
is granted.  
Formal Findings
Formal findings for or against Applicant on the allegations set forth in the SOR,
as required by section E3.1.25 of Enclosure 3 of the Directive, are:
Paragraph 1, Guideline H: FOR APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 1.a-d: For Applicant
Conclusion
In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is
clearly consistent with national interest to grant Applicant a security clearance.
Clearance is granted.
ARTHUR E. MARSHALL, JR.
Administrative Judge